d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > City Hall Subpoenas Sermons > Horrible Breach Of Church/state Imo
Prev1345
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 33,928
Joined: Sep 10 2007
Gold: 25.00
Oct 18 2014 10:00pm
Quote (Scaly @ Oct 18 2014 10:26pm)
The internet is different imo. It's an authority of it's own. Each site has it's rules and if you don't like the rules of a particular site you don't have to visit it.

In fact this website has those rules against harassment, discrimination etc. and if I break them I get punished for it - same as anyone.


But there is a difference between criticism and hate-speech. As an example from our hate speech laws -

Situation 1 -

On 20 April 2010, police arrested Dale McAlpine, a Christian preacher, of Workington in Cumbria, for saying that homosexual conduct was a sin. On 14 May 2010, the Crown decided not to prosecute McAlpine. Later still the police apologised to McAlpine for arresting him at all, and paid him several thousand pounds compensation.

Situation 2 -

On 2 September 2006, Stephen Green was arrested in Cardiff for distributing pamphlets which called sexual activity between members of the same sex a sin. On 28 September 2006, the Crown advised Cardiff Magistrates Court that it would not proceed with the prosecution

Situation 3 -

On 13 October 2001, Harry Hammond, an evangelist, was arrested and charged under section 5 of the Public Order Act (1986) because he had displayed to people in Bournemouth a large sign bearing the words "Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord". In April 2002, a magistrate convicted Hammond, fined him £300, and ordered him to pay costs of £395.

In the first two examples the defendant is only expressing a religious belief. This is fine. Saying something is sinful does not equate to an incitement of discrimination outside of the reach of their religious sect as sin is a religious concept. In the third the defendant used inflammatory language - implying homosexuality was immoral. Morality is a non-religious concept and to imply someone is immoral due to their sexual orientation is discriminatory and an incitement to harassment, violence and other acts against the freedom of those with that sexual orientation. Telling people to 'stop homosexuality' as another incitement to action. His words are an incitement to breach of the peace.

In general I think our courts do a good job of weeding out genuine hatespeech from concerned religious people and overall I'm extremely happy with how our laws are implemented.


That sounds like twisting words. As well as a waste of the courts time.
You're implying Stop homosexuality means "someone go out and beat that faggot for being gay, put a stop to it"
When in reality the sign means "individual, you stop doing that".
Much like when you say "stop speaking" you aren't telling everyone around that person to beat the fuck out of them until they can't speak.

:bonk:
Member
Posts: 40,833
Joined: Sep 17 2011
Gold: 0.00
Oct 18 2014 10:20pm
Quote (Mangix @ 19 Oct 2014 04:00)
That sounds like twisting words. As well as a waste of the courts time.
You're implying Stop homosexuality means "someone go out and beat that faggot for being gay, put a stop to it"
When in reality the sign means "individual, you stop doing that".
Much like when you say "stop speaking" you aren't telling everyone around that person to beat the fuck out of them until they can't speak.

:bonk:


Well the court obviously didn't agree because they fined him rather than dismiss the case.

In any case you know my views on religion in general. It's difficult to dance around them. We have our hatespeech laws and I agree with them.
Member
Posts: 10,566
Joined: May 31 2013
Gold: 0.76
Oct 19 2014 01:46am
Quote (Scaly @ 18 Oct 2014 23:20)
Well the court obviously didn't agree because they fined him rather than dismiss the case.

In any case you know my views on religion in general. It's difficult to dance around them. We have our hatespeech laws and I agree with them.



We in The U.S. cling to our freedoms, one reason was to get out from under the tyranny of the crown so I think there is a base difference in what we expect or demand

as citizens, where you in the UK. may expect to be protected a little more than we do, we expect and demand more freedoms than you do. With those freedoms we have to suffer the good

with the bad. There is a man who lives down rt. 65 just 10 miles or so from us who has signs and a semi trailer painted with the worst things possible about president Obama, and liberal Democrats in general

I find the signs dis-tasteful to the point of vulgar, yet I would picket city hall for his right to have those signs. The same as those pastors, if the city asked for the copies of the sermons

that would be one thing but subpoenaing them is not only wrong but a dangerous practice to allow.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1345
Add Reply New Topic New Poll